5 min readAhmedabadUpdated: Sep 1, 2026 11:57 AM IST
The Gujarat High Court has warned the Centre and senior officers of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) of contempt proceedings if its directions to amend service rules that discriminate against HIV positive personnel are not followed within a deadline. The court’s strong observations came in a case of a woman CRPF officer, who had been denied promotion for being HIV positive.
The High Court’s warning came on Monday, when a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray rejected the Union Home Ministry’s affidavit. The court noted that the paramilitary force had not amended provisions to comply with the HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017, which aims to counter discrimination against those living with HIV.
“It is not about combat forces… it is about people who are there in your institution… This stigma has to go… The Act does not permit you to discriminate… if one catches HIV virus during service,” the court orally remarked on Monday.
The question of amendment of rules came up when the petitioner, now retired, moved the High Court in December through Advocate Swapneshwar Goutam. The petitioner sought “clarification” on the court’s August 2025 order regarding her promotion.
The woman officer – a Sub Inspector (Ministerial) — approached the court in 2025 on being denied timely promotion to Inspector (Ministerial) and, later, Assistant Commandant (Ministerial); she was placed in a lower medical category because she is HIV-positive.
In its judgment on August 4, 2025, the High Court not only ordered that she be given promotion and consequential financial benefits, but also directed the authorities to amend the CRPF’s medical and recruitment rules to remove provisions that discriminate against HIV-positive personnel.
The High Court had ruled that “the other clauses… of the Standing Order… are also required to be suitably amended to remove any kind of discrimination, directly or indirectly, expressly or by effect which denies or withholds any benefit, opportunity or advantage from any person or category of persons being HIV/AIDS +ve person(s).”
Story continues below this ad
The court held that the rules were “ultra vires” (beyond the law) the Constitution and were “discriminatory and arbitrary”. Calling it an “irresistible conclusion” that the petitioner had been wronged, the court had noted that “no efforts seem to have been made” to bring CRPF’s service rules in line with the HIV/AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017..”
Court questions compliance
The court has repeatedly sought an explanation from the CRPF and the Ministry of Home Affairs on why the amendments have not been brought into force.
In December, the court issued a show-cause notice after finding that the authorities’ subsequent orders and a signal issued by the CRPF appeared to be in breach of its directions. The court said the respondents had to explain why proceedings for “deliberate and willful non-compliance” should not be initiated against them.
The court subsequently found that even the petitioner’s promotion had not been implemented as directed. The CRPF had shifted the effective date of her promotion from August 2019, rather than the earlier date on which her juniors had moved up. The bench rejected this interpretation, finding “no confusion” in its original order, and issued a showcause notice.
Story continues below this ad
On March 24, the court noted that the CRPF’s affidavit does not respond to its directions. In July, the Centre’s counsel HD Shukla cited an internal communication, which shows a proposal to amend relevant provisions had been taken up with medical authorities of the Central Armed Police Forces and sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs for a decision. The court noted that the amendment had remained pending and that there was still no proper response demonstrating compliance.
The court then directed that an affidavit from a responsible officer in the office of the Home Secretary be placed on record by August 31, warning that failure to do so could invite an adverse order.
‘Sorry state of affairs’
In its August 2025 judgment, the High Court had said the case “presented a very sorry state of affairs at the ends of the respondent authorities… in perpetuating discrimination by not bringing necessary amendments in the Standing Order No.04/2008 and the recruitment/appointment Rules which prescribe blanket restriction for promotion or appointment to persons who are not kept in medical category Shape I, specifically HIV/AID +ve personnel.”
“SHAPE-1” signifies that a combatised serving personnel is fully fit for all duties. The acronym SHAPE represents: S (Psychological), H (Hearing), A (Appendages), P (Physical Capacity), and E (Eyesight). A SHAPE-1 rating indicates that all these aspects are assessed as being in good condition.
